[2025] UKUT 0213 (LC)

This reference was made to the Tribunal in October 2023, and was for a period stayed whilst the parties discussed a possible settlement. By the time of the preparation for the hearing SEDC’s expert valuer, Mr Colin Smith, had retired. With permission, his place was taken by his colleague, Mr Henry Church MRICS FAAV. Mr Church (having discussed the matter with Mr Smith on many occasions) adopted Mr Smith’s evidence, and submitted a second report of his own which was to the same effect. Mr Nelson’s expert valuer throughout has been Mr John Davies MRICS.

Given the commendable degree of common ground between the valuers, it is convenient to outline their evidence together on each head of claim. The valuers called them ‘issues’, but I prefer Ms Chorfi’s ‘bases’.

It is common ground that the value of what the experts call ‘the existing property’ (the implemented PP3) has been affected by the presence of the apparatus. They have agreed this basis, if awarded, at £19,462. That figure is based upon:

At the date of the grant of the wayleave, the house had not been completed, but the valuers were content to proceed assuming it was.

I should add at this point that Mr Nelson referred to advice he had received from estate agents, but these were not produced as expert evidence, and Mr Nelson confirmed that he was not demurring from the advice of Mr Davies, who had agreed a value of £1,500,000 with Messrs Smith and Church.

This is agreed at £53,500, if awarded. That is based on the floor difference between that of PP3 and the larger PP2. The total loss of floorspace comprised 328 sq ft ground and first floor, and 285 sq ft of roof space, which the experts value at £322 and £107 per sq ft respectively, arriving at a total loss of gross development value of £136,206. After deducting build costs and £10,000 for ‘reverting to PP2 in July 2023’, they agree that compensation on this basis should be £53,500.

Mr Davies says that the compensation under Basis A and B should be added together. Mr Church says that compensation is correctly assessed as Basis A, in the alternative Basis B, but not both.

Mr Davies does not opine on the extent of compensation under basis C, but provides a calculation of £69,000, based on the cost of two shutdowns per year, at £3,000 per shutdown, across the 15 year life of the wayleave (the calculation is £6,000 x years’ purchase for 15 years @ 3.5%).

Mr Church says that no compensation is payable under this basis that is not already accounted for under Bases A and B.